Update: I dug through a recycling bin and found a copy of the Daily Barometer with the blackface photograph:
The Daily Barometer is the student-run newspaper at Oregon State University. A recent front page article showed a photograph of a white student in blackface. The article encouraged OSU students to “blackout” the football stadium.
Renee Roman Nose, an OSU student and frequent Daily Barometer columnist, wrote a column in response to the Barometer blackface photograph/article.
Unfortunately, the Barometer editorial staff/advisory board took umbrage with Renee’s column and have banned that column and any of her future columns from being printed in the student newspaper.
I found out about Renee’s column and sent her an email asking if I could post it on my blog. Renee’s response: “Please feel free to post it. It’s nice to know that there is freedom of speech at ericstoller.com! 
Renee’s column entitled, Blackface: It’s Just for Racists, is after the cut…
Tags: discrimination, Higher Education, oregon state university, Race, racism, racist imagery, Social Justice, student affairsBlackface: It’s Just for Racists
Apparently I missed the memo that said it was ok to go out in public in blackface, although it was written on the front page of the Daily Barometer in Friday’s edition as students were encouraged to go in blackface to the Saturday game. Much to my chagrin an African friend of mine, Wolof, who is also an OSU student (one of the mighty 264), approached me and asked me what was going on at the paper and had I seen the issue? He promptly pulled it out of his book bag and told me to keep it. After reading it, I wondered why students and alumni were being encouraged to “blackout” Reser stadium for last week’s game. Apparently there were postings on Facebook as well as OregonLive regarding this effort. Also apparently, to me at least, we haven’t come as far as I thought we have in terms of diversity awareness, cultural understanding, or in terms of racism and what might well be construed as a racist act.
There are t-shirts for sale in the bookstore that read, “I see orange people” so I am wondering why an “orange-out” wasn’t planned instead of a “blackout”? The accompanying photo was equally disturbing. Perhaps people don’t realize how offensive it is to blacks to see white people wear blackface? Or to people who are not Black but are considerate of others? I’m not saying this to be politically correct; anyone who knows me knows that I could care less about political correctness but care immensely about deliberately offending someone else about their culture or personal beliefs. I don’t understand how a collegiate paper can print something so offensive on their front page, or any page for that matter!
On behalf of myself, since I do not speak on behalf of the Daily Barometer (read disclaimer below) I would like to sincerely apologize to every Black student, staff, and faculty member, as well as any community member, who may have been offended by reading Friday’s edition and seeing the accompanying photo of a white male in blackface. I would also like to apologize to those of you who are not Black and were also offended.
What do you think it might make a black person on campus think if they see such an article in our student newspaper? Do you think they feel welcome here? That the OSU environment is friendly or considerate to minority people?
Do we just shake our heads and tell each other, “What can you do, some people may never learn,” all with a casual shrug of our shoulders? Or do we encourage people to get diversity training? Do we ask folks to attend an event at one of the cultural centers? Do we just ignore it and hope that it ends up in the recycling bin and long forgotten? Do you think that the Black students on this campus are going to forget? Do you think that they felt honored by having other people suggest such a thing?
There was a recent video reenactment of the alleged Jena 6 assault which was pulled from the Facebook page of a student in Louisiana whose friends covered themselves in mud and jumped another friend, supposedly because they were drunk and having fun while referring to one another by the “N” word. There are also additional racially inflammatory images that have been posted by other students in other states. Isn’t racism what started the problems that resulted in the alleged Jena 6 assault in the first place? What is wrong with people? What is wrong with the Daily Barometer that we wouldn’t consider this before printing such an article? Just because it appears in Facebook, MySpace, or OregonLive, that doesn’t necessarily make it a good idea.
According to Dictionary Definition: “1. blackface – the makeup used by a performer in order to imitate a Negro.” The term blackface is usually tied to racism and prejudice. Not to mention outright bigotry. Ok, I’ll mention it. I personally found the blackface suggestion offensive, as I don’t appreciate seeing non-Native people try to dress like Natives for Halloween or in blackface in imitation of Black people.
I was at a pow wow in Florida once where I saw a White woman wearing a short buckskin dress that was cut thigh-high and she was wearing a long black wig with various other equally inappropriate accoutrements. My friends and I were so disgusted that we left the arena and the pow wow. I had immediately lost all desire to dance and had to suppress a desire to throttle. Ok, not really, but I did want to give her a piece of my mind as she had obviously lost some of hers. You don’t go to a pow wow scantily clad and you don’t go in blackface makeup anywhere.
After doing some research on blackface, and the history of it, I do realize that the minstrel shows of decades ago did provide some avenue for blacks to perform and some of them could not do so unless they too were in blackface. But, as time, and our world, has evolved, the realization that these minstrel shows promoted racist views of a large segment of our population also evolved. Just ask Ted Danson if it is acceptable to go in blackface, he can give you a very informative story about his adventures with that effort at the Friar’s Club way back in 1993 when he was dating Whoopi Goldberg.
While it’s none of my business what anyone wore to the game on Saturday, it is my hope that the “blackface” suggestion dies an untimely death. That this suggestion of a “blackout” be buried on the internet with a small reminder that anything you put on the internet can be found and will be there for future employers to find when they “Google” your name. In future, wear your own face wherever you go. It’s a good one, the Creator gave it you.
Walk a Mile in My Moccasins
By
Renée Roman Nose
I can’t decide if I need to start paying more attention to the Barometer by reading it or actively boycotting.
*pukes*
I personally don’t get what’s so “bad” about this column that it didn’t get printed. *shakes head*
Eric Stoller: digging through the trash since 2007.
Wait? I thought the new fad was hanging nooses.
The editorial board saw nothing wrong with printing that photo, and yet took issue with Renee’s article opposing it?
Seriously, what the hell is going on in the US right now? Are folks collectively losing their minds?
thanks for printing the article from Renee, Eric. I like that the paper’s board was so threatened that they saved themselves the trouble of even having to bother reading any future columns from Renee. Whoo! Free speech!
I’m not getting what fun students find in the “blackout”, especially when they have orange color. How those “blackout” fans don’t think about the origination of blackout. I think it’s very clear that it touches racial issues and students HAVE TO understand it.
Regarding Renée’s article – I think that it has to be in the Barometer, as it really may explain what blackout is to some students. Probably barometer just didn’t like the caption. I would encourge Renee to change the caption and try the Barometer again, even though they refused to print any of her future colomns. Just try to play with a caption, so that information were spread out among students.
On Friday evening, I went to visit a Black Cultural Center’s Bowl-A-Rama, but at the enterance right in forn of my face, I met a poster saying BLACK CULTURE ONLY. I didn’t expect such an invitation. Now I persume that probably the article and “blachout fasion” was the reason of that. What do you think?
Just think positively!
Viktoriya,
While I would like to agree with you that it was probably Renée’s column title that got it banned from the Barometer, I don’t think it is. The title of a column is pretty negotiable and is often actually chosen by an editor who is doing layout so that it fits with the column width (though they often take suggestions from their columnists). I’m not sure how the Barometer does it, but I’m guessing that it probably wasn’t the title that ticked off the Baro.
Regarding the poster at the Bowl-A-Rama, I’m a bit surprised. It’s against OSU policy and the law to restrict who can attend an event, so I’m wondering about the sign. Was it meant to restrict who could enter? Or was it meant as an affirmation of black culture(s)?
Hi Michael,
I can only guess what was the meaning of the sign. It was written with a felt-tip pen in one line on the peace of paper of size about 11X17. Some information about the hours also appeared there. That evening I was not in right the mood to ask them. I was staying in the entrance for a minute or two and nobody paid any attention to me, so I just left. Than I met my husband and he didn’t believe that exactly these words were written there. I thought probably I misread it. So we went to check it and it really said “black culture only“. I would be very happy if it were affirmation of black culture. Sure it would have been better if they wrote at least “Welcome, black culture!” Or the ideal variant would be “Welcome TO black culture“. It was a public event as they sent e-mails to other organizations. I’m just really concerned what made them to write it in case it was a restriction.
Just think positively!
I noticed there is an article in today’s Corvallis Gazette Times about this situation, and most of the comments seem to be anti Renee Roman Nose…some of the folks are just downright hostile about it! It tells me how much covert racism there in Oregon. I personally think this “blackface” thing is very inappropriate. Surely there’s another way to show school spirit than to use such a demeaning thing like going around in blackface. Kudos to you for printing her column so that others can see just how wrong this was on several levels.
I told the story about “blackfaces” to my husband and he just doesn’t see anything wrong in it. When I asked why black? He answered because black and white are the most contrast and bright colors. He thinks that it has nothing to do with racism and I’m looking for it in the wrong place. He is definitely not a racist. So probably those who support blackouts also thinks in the same way. Maybe they consider those who see racism in the blackouts as people who are looking for something negative everywhere and want a conflict. That’s why I think that the approach to explaining people that blackout is not a right thing should not sound like we are blaming them in racism. I would rather explain it as black people just do not feel comfortable if others are using their color as a decoration. I think the majority would understand it and probably the Barometer as well. Maybe I expect this world to be too kind…, but I’m sure if you are attacking somebody they will always attack you back. So I encourage you not to use the explanation that “blackout is a racist act”, but to explain it in a way that black people don’t like it and our environment should be minority friendly.
Just think positively!
[…] Renee Roman Nose’s editorial on blackface and its subsequent banning by the Daily Barometer staff was recently featured in a news story in Corvallis’ newspaper, the Gazette Times. The commentary by Corvallis residents has been appalling. The article, “Black Out Reser’ raises racial spectre,” has brought out white racist sentiment in droves. A follow-up article by Zel Brook of Corvallis-Albany NAACP, “as I see it: Blackface painting at rally was ignorant,” has been overrun with even more white racists. When I moved to Corvallis, I was told that it was a bastion of liberalism. It turns out that Corvallis is a bastion of white liberal racists who have no problem hiding behind anonymous comments that are filled with racism and sexism. By the way, I do not self-identify as a liberal, and this is exactly why I do not. […]
Viktoriya - Blackface is part of the racist historical context of the United States. The wikipedia article has a lot of details…
I know and understand it. And as you noticed in one of my messages I mentioned that I do not understand how those people do not think about the origination of blackouts. I just mean that we should help them to understand what is wrong in blackouts.. And I don’t think that blaming them in racism is a right thing, as I’m sure majority of those who support blackouts do not want to offend black people. They just don’t understand it. And as I mentioned before, the most common reaction to attack is attack back. So people should not think that we are blaming them, they should think that we are explaining them that it’s not right. Do you understand the difference?
Just think positively!
I think Victoriya’s comment has some importance. Anti-racist activists are often quick to label racist acts as racist (and those who engage in them as racists), which immediately raises alarms and makes others defensive. Though it is accurate, it’s perhaps not the most rhetorically savvy move to explain that anyone who engages in blackface is engaging in racism.
Perhaps a more rhetorical approach would be to explain the historical connotations of the image and to explain the maiming of dignity that occurs with it. I know that’s not a complete answer, either, because I know of the immediate reaction from many that “you don’t have a right to not be offended.”
It’s complicated, trying to get others to listen to anti-racist ideas, whether they are conservative or liberal, and trying to listen to what they have to say in order to understand their perspectives…
Victoriya - I’m sorry about the delay in how my site handles your comments. They keep getting marked as spam for some reason. I keep “de-spamming” them…I’m sorry that my site’s spam filters are not working correctly.
I think the most challenging aspect of pointing out the history of blackface to white folks is that white folks can go through their existence without ever having to know about blackface. Renee’s initial article, in my opinion, was an educational piece.
I also do not think that it is a valid excuse that the students who printed the blackface photo were unaware of the historical context of blackface. It’s very telling to me that that is used as an excuse (it’s been used a lot on the GT article comments). History education in the US has always been very white-centric. I think the lack of knowledge by the Barometer staff is a great example of a mostly white staff being ignorant of experiences that are outside of their dominant paradigm experience.
Just wanted to let the folks who were following this post know that an additional discussion has begun on my Corvallis, Oregon post…
Eric,
Thanks so much for publishing Renee Roman Nose’s censored column. I, for one, will be writing the Barometer editorial staff tomorrow to protest their censorship and demand that she be reinstated as a columnist.
The Barometer actually published Renee’s column and issued an apology.
That was one weak apology if you ask me.
That’s great that the Barometer published Renee’s column and folks will read it! Finally, everybody may make a mistake, but the main thing is to realize and to correct it.:)
Just think positively!
Dap has written a nice follow-up to the Barometer’s apology piece.
To Eric and Friends,
Thank you for reading my column in the original form. My intent was to scold my newspaper and to get them to start a dialogue. Which explains the title, which I had fully expected would be changed before printing, if they printed it at all. I was told that I should have called them first, and that they didn’t think that they had done anything wrong. I have been allowed to continue writing and submitting to the Barometer but have also heard that they have been looking for a reason to fire me for some time as my columns are written from a minority perspective in an effort to show the strengths of my own culture and how we can learn from one another. It has never been my intent to say that one is superior to the other, just to provide the information and allow others to look in their hearts and their communities and decide for themselves.
As an aside to Viktoriya, I was at the BCC event and was playing pool when you walked in. I saw you but thought that perhaps you changed your mind or didn’t see anyone that you knew there. I would have been happy to talk to you. I think that they posted the sign so that those invited would know that they had come to the right place, not as an exclusionary method.
All the best,
Renee
[…] I really hope that Bob Kerr, OSU’s Coordinator of Greek Life, addresses this situation immediately. I also hope that the OSU student newspaper, the Daily Barometer does not try to cover up or silence anti-racist editorials on this situation. (The Barometer has refused to print several editorials that critique the Barometer’s printing of a photo of a student in blackface.) […]
[…] Several Oregon media outlets have posted stories on the recent black out at Reser Stadium and the noose at the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity. […]
This is very simple. There did not print a picture of anyone in “blackface.” There was no effort “…to affect the countenance of” a black person. This was a student wearing a black t-shirt, black shorts, and black paint to cover ALL of his exposed skin, not just his face. Why? To present a monochromatic color scheme in support of his football team who happens to have black as a central color (and who I recall has worn black jerseys and black pants for games in the past). To extend to anything “racist” is simply more overanalysis, injecting race where it is not, etc.
To Viktoriya:
I would hasten to add that black people do not have a monopoly on the use of the color black.
Thanks for everybody’s replies to my words.
I understand that due to the historical background of “black face” wearing it by other people now may be offensive to black people. On the other hand I completely agree that those who were wearing all black for a football game to support their team did mean to do anything offensive or racist. However, as far is the issues are controversial, somebody should stop doing one thing. I think it’s easier just to find a different way to support a football team, than for black people to see nothing racist or offensive in “blackouts”. Once again, due to origination of “”black face” it’s impossible to change a stereotype and even if black people will believe that “blackouts” do not mean to offence them, it still will remind them about “black face”) . I’m not blaming those who were wearing black faces, but I would strongly encourage them not to do it any more, because it may make someone feel uncomfortable.
What do you think about this, FinanceBuzz?
Actually, FB, I agree with a lot of what you have to say in your most recent comment. I agree with you about the intentions of the students using black paint. I agree with you that black people do not have a monopoly on the color black. In fact, I haven’t heard anyone make claims to the contrary.
What I don’t agree with is your claims that “This is very simple.” I actually find it hard to believe that someone educated would explain that something as complicated as this is “simple.” Attempts to make this a “simple” issue are attempts to mask complexity.
Seeing this as racist isn’t overanalysis, though. You have yet to show that the use of blackface by football fans doesn’t connote historical blackface used by white folk to demean black folk. You have yet to show that this does not maim the dignity of black people, and you have yet to show that when we maim someone’s dignity we shouldn’t then apologize and correct our actions.
You state here that “black people do not have a monopoly on the use of the color black.” This is true because historically white people have had this monopoly (or near monopoly). Race, as a social construct, was first developed in the 1500s by white folk, who defined what it meant to be black (inferior, slave, etc.) and have continued this throughout time (1 drop rule, minstrel shows, segregation — both historical and current — etc.). Even what it publicly means to be black is defined by and for a white audience. For example, rappers are sold and distributed through megacorporations owned and operated mainly by white people, and the albums are sold mostly to white people. With exceptions, of course, what it means to be black in this country is largely defined by or for white people.
Michael,
Everything past your second paragraph is over analysis IMO and I am not going to go along with you in it. The burden of proof is not on me regarding anyone’s dignity. You are the one imparting meaning above the explicit meaning of wearing your team color, a suggestion that is a stretch at best.
FB,
Perhaps it would help if you showed how it’s over-analysis instead of claiming it is and then dismissing it on those grounds. I don’t see how it’s over-analysis because, as almost anybody who studies communication (except perhaps the most strict formalist) would argue, your last sentence is an inaccurate understanding of communication. This is because a message is understood and interpreted by the reader/listener; the intention of message isn’t necessarily even received.
I consider this over-analysis because we are talking about going to a football game sporting team colors and somehow A group of people have managed to find racist symbolism when is none (except for perhaps the wig). I think the majority of people would agree unless you are looking for racism.
Vicktoriya,
I that is a fair and reasonable perspective. I thank you not implying that football fans are being racist intentionally or not. I still think people need thicker skin given the blackout in context, but I can understand how such an image could be painful to some black people.
FB,
What’s the problem with looking for racism? We should be looking for it, no?
I mean, I’m on the lookout for all sorts of other bad things, so why not this?
Unless “looking for racism” is some sort of code for “inventing it where it doesn’t exist,” which is how I’m interpreting your statements in context. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
you interpret correctly.
FB,
OK - so who gets to decide if something is racist or not? Whether racism is present or not?
Oh, guys…. Racism is not present here, but it reminds about past racism, that’s why it’s NOT RIGHT to do blackouts. Wouldn’t both sides agree with it? I think FB already agreed with me, or did I understand something wrong?
So what about the other side? Can you claim that all those students who were doing “blackout” on Resers stadium are racists?
Hey, people should understand each other but not only to blame each other.
Well shouldn’t that something actually be about race first?
FB - obviously you don’t think it’s about race, but who gets to make that decision? Do you make it for everybody? Do I? Do we each make that determination on our own? What happens when our determinations come into conflict?
Dennis, please provide one shred of evidence that someone dressing for a football game is about race. And don’t simply say “he had black face paint on” because that is a really weak reason.
Vicktoriya,
I thought you made a valid point in your next to last post but I cannot go along with saying that something like the blackout event is inherently wrong. I am sensitive to actions or words that hurt people’s feelings, intentionally or inadvertently. However, if someone takes offense at something that has no (in this case) racial context simply because it might resemble a racial act, that is something they need to deal within theirself. You cannot sanitize life of anything that might remind you of something painful, especially innocuous things like this blackout that have to twisted and stretched to be turned into something racial.
Now, I acknowledge that some acts can be done with no intent to hurt feelings but, in its nature, is ill-advised and should give people pause as to whether they should engage in such an act. For example, a local high was putting on a play some years ago that had a black character. They were unable to get a black student to play the part so they were going to have a white student use black makeup to play the part. Now. I think this is another case of hypersensitivity and given the circumstances, the play should have been allowed to proceed. However, I can at least understand why someone might take offense because, though meant to be offensive, there was a definite racial connection. This is not the case with the blackout. You cannot expect to stop doing things in their life simply because some might invent a racist meaning to it or because they have an irrational hypersensitivity and can find something offensive in so many neutral things.
FB,
It’s not “simply because it might resemble a racial act”and it’s not just someone and they cannot deal with it. Why? Because this is a stereotype. And believe me, it’s very very hard to change it. “just deal with it” will not work. You say : “You cannot sanitize life of anything that might remind you of something painful” But why not to try? Why some play/fun should cause pain? Let make a parallel. Let’s say someone create a game for children to play army and call it “Iraq”. Do you think it would be OK, because “ You cannot sanitize life of anything that might remind you of something painful “.
I think before we ever reach any sort of agreement on this specific instance, that Dennis’s question of “who gets to decide if something is racist or not?” needs to be addressed. What sort of criteria is necessary to determine if something is racist or not? And then who gets to make the decision?
FB, you seem to say in your last post that race must be “present” in order for this decision to be made. But how can we determine if race is “present”? If the effects of racism are often unrecognized by white people (example: many proponents of segregation saw it as a good thing to segregate schools, not only for white people, but also for black people. The maiming of dignity was largely unrecognized by many white people), then who gets to say race is “present” in a given situation or context?
Additionally, as a bit of a sidetrack I guess, when you use terms like “irrational hypersensitivity,” FB, I have to wonder how “rational” is defined and who gets to define it?
To give an example of the problematic ways in which “rational” could be used: I could point to your insistence that race is not “present” in this situation and that those of who see that it as “present” are “over-analyzing” the situation. Because I don’t see your backing up your claims with evidence (what evidence do you have that race is not present? what are the lines between ok analysis and over-analysis?), I could easily make the claim that your argumentation style is irrational because, from a point of view, it lacks evidence and support and is mere assertion. I am certain you would disagree that your claims are irrational, but my point here is not to call them such. Instead, I’m trying to show, via a perhaps inadequate example, the ways in which it’s problematic to label someone else’s views as “irrational.”
This comment is to begin to address Dennis’s and my own questions (as I phrased it above), as well as FB’s request, “please provide one shred of evidence that someone dressing for a football game is about race. And don’t simply say “he had black face paint on” because that is a really weak reason.”
As a caveat, let us remember that this is not about the clothing and “blackout,” but rather about the face paint in particular.
Reasons I see race present in this situation:
1. As far as I can tell, all those students who are wearing black face paint were white. Deconstructionist literary, rhetorical, and linguistic theory(ies) has long argued that the absence of something (in this case, black people) also connotes its absent presence. Put another way, the presence of something always defers to its difference; white defers to its difference: black. A group of all white people should immediately remind us of the absence of people of color.
2. All rhetorical acts cite previous rhetorical acts, whether intentionally or not. The image in the Barometer of a white person wearing black face paint, along with the tag that this image is “intimidating,” cites prior white people wearing black face paint, particularly minstrel shows where blacks were often “painted” by white actors as intimidating, savage folk. It is important to remember that citations do not have to be intentional.
3. As a white person, I cannot understand or know all the experiences of black people. If a black person says that something reminds them of the use of images and terms used against them, either historically or presently, I believe it is important to acknowledge that people have different connotations and associations with texts and acts, and to acknowledge that while I may be ignorant of these connotations, I can apologize for and cease my behavior. Put another way, people have different lived experiences, and I believe it is important to acknowledge that by being white, I cannot know the lived experiences of black people. If a group of black people see race in something, then I believe I should listen to them.
Because the kind of sanitizing that would be required for this situation, for example, would require people to walk around on eggshells because something might offend someone. If we are talking about tasteless jokes, inappropriate terminology, etc. I would be there with you. But when we are talking about dressing up at a football game, we are supposed to stop that because, what i believe to be, a very small minority gets upset over it? I think you can find a small group that will get upset over a ton of things. Sorry, but that is life and you cannot live yourself in an emotional cushion where you feelings are never going to get bruised. You are better off learning to address those feelings, especially when they are apparently hypersensitive as they are in this case. I say again, I do not want to intentionally or unintentionally hurt anyone’s feeling, but when you get your feelings hurt over little or nothing, you cannot expect the whole world to change for you. To connect race in this situation is quite a stretch. It’s like going from the student section at Reser Stadium to the 50-yard line but detouring through Autzen in Eugene (sorry….I am a Ducks fan after my beloved Yellow Jackets so I could not resist!
) You can take that route, and you will get there, but most people are going to be left scratching their heads at it.
Michael,
First, I am not the one making a claim that is not self-obvious based on the available coverage of the event. Also, you are asking me to prove that something is not there. Conversely, you are the one trying to find a non-obvious meaning to this show of gridiron support, in the absence of apparent support for this claim. That places far more need of evidence on your stance in my opnion.
However, I will give you evidence that this has nothing to do with race. From the article:
There is the explicit rationale for the event - no indication that race is a factor here.
Lots of schools are doing this as it seems to be the latest trend in fan support. This concept in general even includes a white-out at Penn State (the first place i remember doing something like this to dramatic effect) - should I be offended as a white man??? And the concept as a whole is probably not associated with race since Jackson State, a historically black institution was doing this as well. And their event at JSU is a…*gasp*…white out! UGA just did a blackout down here last week and it was asked for by the seniors on the football team. I am betting that some of those seniors are black.
And referring to the white out at JSU, should the following apply:
Or are we not allowed to notice the absence of “color-challenged” people? (For the record, I have no concerns with there being a predominantly black institution.) Oh, and I would add that most people are probably not pondering literature, rhetoric, and linguistics. (Which causes me to ask…do you regularly attend OSU football games or games whereever you attend school?)
So this context is the only reason that all black would be intimidating? Do all connotations of a color (and I mean a pigment, not skin) come back to a person of black heritage?
Convenient. Makes it easier to find where it isn’t. Now for something to be racist in nature, all someone has to do is basically produce someone who finds something marginally related to something that is racial and express their offense.
Fine. Listen. No harm in that. But do not then turn around and tell thousands of people, who mean nothing more by their actions but to support a football team, that their actions are racist a, whether they mean them to be or not, and that they cannot show their support in that manner. What would be more constructive and better for society in my opinion, would be to talk to this group and say “I understand that this causes some pain, but they are just cheering on a football team. Let’s try to move past our pain and realize that no one is trying to cause you pain here.” AT what point can we expect people to move on past this pain in a society that is (and it is) drastically different from the one where blackface performers were common? Seems to me if this were a psychology session, the psychologist would be helping them deal with the pain rather than trying to remove all pain tiriggers from the world.
Please understand, I am not trying to ridicule you or Eric personally but rather your points. Sometimes points on this board will give me pause to at least the point they are making though I may still not agree. However, on this topic, you are out to lunch and your efforts to turn this cheerful event of supporting the football team into a racist event is sad. Guys it is ok to go to a football game and have fun. Not everything is drenched in racial bias and animosity. When myself and people like me (people who like things going to football games and not seeing it as a political, social or economic microcosm of the world), hear the uproar being made and then look at what the underlying issue is, we simply dismiss those who are up on their racial soapboxes as people divorced from reality at best and names that I do not use at worst. As I said, sometimes I think you at least have points to be made, so on those occasions, your crying wolf over some facepaint at a football game causes your cries when the wolf really is present to be ignored. Does not really bother me, as I think a lot of your type of arguments only serve to keep racial tension simmering and that our society would be better off without constant attempts to invest racism out of thing air. So that is that. I am tuning you out on this topic as I quite honestly find it silly to devote this much time debating such depth over what is nothing more than a decoration at a football game. I would rather spend my limited response time on more substantive issues in this area that may be racist in nature and merit a more detailed analysis.
FB,
I am sad to read that you are tuning this out and you don’t find it worth continuing to discuss. I am often frustrated when white people eventually tire of talking about race and racism or when men tire of talking about sexism, as well as when other people with institutional power tire of talking about discrimination in some way — this is because as someone in a position of institutional power, you have the privilege to ignore the situation, grow tired of talking about it, and moving on with your life because it has no apparent direct effect on your life.
And I’ve been there too, and will probably be there again, where I let the privilege of being white to allow me to tire of a discuss of racism and move on. All white people who engage in discussion of racism probably do this (or at least almost all), because it is tiring to talk about it. But I don’t think it’s a waste of time (obviously, because I am also taking time out other activities to post here).
You addressed a lot in your previous comment here, and unfortunately, I probably cannot adequately address all your points.
I will be up front and say that no, I do not go to football games. This is not because I don’t enjoy football — I do enjoy watching a game and even playing with friends, though it has been a long time since I’ve played football with friends. I largely don’t attend football games because I am uncomfortable with the way that masculinity is defined at those games: harassing other people, drinking heavily, and acting juvenile. I have witnessed this behavior while walking on sidewalks near the football game before it starts. As someone who values the intellectual pursuits of universities, I also find it troubling how many students put more loyalty into the school’s sports teams than into their actual school. This has led to rivalries between schools, which has unfortunately led to violent behavior from one group of loyal fans to another, including taunting, yelling, intimidation, and destruction of property.
I have nothing against people having fun. It’s when that fun comes at the expense of others’ dignity that I take umbrage.
Referring to white face paint at a game, I find it harder to read race into this, largely for three reasons: 1) white face as a citation refers to war paint or miming (more so the former at football games) and has never had a cultural racial use behind it; 2) white face has never been used to demean the dignity of white people as a race; and 3) white people have more power in our country and have never been the targets of society-level oppression.
In regards to your “color-challenged” phrase, I’m confused by it’s use. I don’t see how white people are challenged by the lack of certain pigments in their skin.
I am also troubled by your belief that people who see race in this and feel harmed should see a psychologist. This privatizes a social phenomenon; that is, it turns a social structure into something that an individual has to deal with. This is especially a concern of mine because currently our society is, through its dominant ideologies, trying to privatize much of what I see at a society level. Our society, rather than deal with societal problems, would rather locate the problem in the individual. An example of this is our current struggles over poverty in this country, and rather than understand that our large scale economic structure is designed in a way that leaves people without resources and help, we’ve largely privatized this issue and said that those people won’t put forth the effort to “pull themselves up by the bootstraps.”
I know that I haven’t addressed everything you’ve written above, but I also hope that our conversation here can continue.
Michael,
I will address a few of your broader points as I think do merit discussion. However, I will not engage in a debate as to whether a white man simply putting black paint on his face is automatically racist. I truly believe that particular issue is a silly, frivolous discussion.
Regarding your comments on football, allow me to briefly address those. I did my undergraduate degree at Georgia Tech, a school known for its academic rigor. I did quite well as a student and I appreciate the value of the intellectual pursuits at Georgia Tech. Because of the limited curriculum at Tech and the academic requirements, we are not able to recruit at the same level as many of the “football factories.” While I love college football specifically, and college sports more generally, I am fine with that trade-off as I never want to lose sight of the fact that we are first and foremost an academic institution and not life support for a football team. I am very loyal to Georgia Tech in virtually all ways and financially donate to both the academic as well as the athletic side of the house. However, on fall Saturdays such as today, my loyalty does manifest itself in support for our football team. I do not engage in overt taunting of opposing fans, drinking, or (overly
) juvenile behavior. However, I can see some of the concerns you have about rivalries, This is particularly timely as we enter “Clen Old Fashioned Hate” week, the game week against our arch-rival the University (sic) of Georgia (the sic being an example of the rivalry! 
). While I loathe UGA in general and their teams specifically, I have many close friends who are supporters of the Pound Puppies (aka Bulldogs 
). I do not let the game get personal and I do not condone violent behavior by either side. However, the most terrible fan experience I have ever had was at a Tech-Georgia at UGA where I saw fan behavior from UGA fans worse than any I have ever encountered. This is an example of sports rivalries going too far. I have endured being called a “nerd” so many times by UGA fans, many of which have never taken a class at the school, just because Tech students have a reputation for nerdiness and being intelligent (and some would say socially inept! 
). However, that does not take away from the value and fun of collegiate athletics. Granted, this is a to each his own type of thing, but I would encourage you to realize that for the overwhelmingly vast majority of fans at Reser, Autzen, Sanford, or Bobby Dood stadiums on a fall Saturday, the game is just about an enjoyable day, the pursuit of a football victory, supporting you team/school, etc. There is little consideration given to the problems of the world because for most of us, it is an escape from the pressures and realities of daily work and school lives. I would submit this is where the outs fall.
Because I believe in individualism, not a group mentality. There may be a group component, but at the end of the day, a lot of how we deal with things is about who we are. When I see responses to stimuli that do not seem to correlate to that stimuli, either due to magnitude of response or lack of connection of the stimulus to the response and I fail to see similar responses from a wide swatch of people, I have to think some of the reason for how someone is dealing with something lies within.
I think this is a perfect example of my point about individual reaction. Yes, there is definitely a social component to poverty and an impact of the community and family you are born into. However, I refuse to see this as the only determinant to future success in life. Why? Because people from disadvantaged backgrounds can and do succeed. Maybe it is the inner city kid getting a chance to be the first member of his family to attend the big state university or an elite academic school like Duke, Stanford, etc. via a sports scholarship. Maybe it is the kid who refuses to succumb to social and peer pressures and works hard to give himself a chance at a college degree. Many of these factors are individual traits and how we respond to situations. To suggest that we are almost exclusively bound by our birth situation denies human initiative, drive and motivation. I also can see it being incredibly insulting when programs are created to ensure success of such groups as I see an implied message of “you cannot do it on your own, so we have to help you.” Help is great, but there are too many success stories in America to not see what individual motivation and hard work can accomplish.
I tire of talking of race when it is injected in situations where it is not a significant factor, when those on the other side of thee debate somehow see race in almost everything that they encounter. This is what i refer to as seeing life through a prism of race. After a while, debating with someone who seems to have that perspective grows tiresome, frustrating, and in some ways depressing.
I have no “institutional power.” I am an ordinary citizen. I can see through the discussions here that there may be some social constructs regarding my race or gender from which I have indirectly benefited (see, some of y’all’s points have sunk in!
) However, those indirect benefits are not major, primary components of where I find myself in life, as far as I am concerned. To suggest I have some sort of power is inaccurate and distorting of my position in society.
Quite honestly, this strikes as more closely approaching racism than many of the points against which readers of this blog speak out about. While I assume you are referring to this concept of privilege many of you espouse, it does approach( though to be fair does not quite reach the standard) of promoting an inherent superiority of whiteness. Either way, Ican see it being somewhat insulting as it diminishes things I have accomplished by attributing this to some supposed “privilege” of being white.
[…] One of the themes that I keep seeing as I peruse the rather lengthy list of racist incidents at college and university campuses is the idea of “real racism.” Comment after comment are posted on how nooses and blackface are not “real racism” and that dialogues about these events should not take place as they might dilute conversations about “real racism.” It should be noted that the majority of “real racism” commenters are usually anonymous white folks who have decided to say when “real racism” has occurred and when it is just “crying wolf.” […]